Friday, October 31, 2014

Despite what could be viewed as the short-sightedness of the disciples with their statements about the ministry of the word of God and praying, and their setting that against their own taking up of the role of slaves at the church’s meal tables, the church prospered. Luke writes that “The proposal pleased the entire group” (Acts 6:5a). Seven men were chosen as deacons (diakonous in the Greek, which means “servants”). “They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands upon them” (6:6).

Not surprisingly then, with service at the root of the church’s witness, and men chosen specifically to serve food to widows (and all who came to the table, with no distinctions or divisions), “The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7). With this success in mind, and this success much owing to the counter-cultural witness of servanthood by the ambassadors of the kingdom of the Creator God, it is possible to step back and wonder if it is possible to imagine Jesus creating this division of labor. While believers stand in the stream of that Spirit-led success, can they dream about the church that may have developed had the very men that were looked to as the pillars and foundation of the church, been the ones that had served all, in full equality, at the church’s meal table? What divisions may have been avoided had the church of the Christ had this example from which to draw?

Luke moves directly from the ordination of the group that came to be referred to as deacons, to the particular story of one of those men---a man by the name of Stephen. Stephen, who is said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5b), which was one of the requirements as suggested by the disciples, served admirably. One goes on to read that “Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (6:8).

As this performance of wonders and signs was undoubtedly linked to the fact of his service at the church’s meal table, and as it was owing to the covenant God’s special attention to widows as revealed by the Hebrew Scriptures, his service to widows must figure prominently in the Spirit’s growing presence in his ministry. Might it also be presumed that the people wondered at what they were seeing from Stephen, which was his willful service to the least, eschewing both honor and shame?

While many are transfixed on signs and wonders, looking to such things as the evidence of the Spirit’s working, the working of the Spirit is just as present and just as powerful when a widow is served. When that widow is served in a way that stands in sharp distinction from the way that she would normally be treated by her culture, with somebody sacrificing their own honor and prestige in order to see to it that she is served, then that is just as great a wonder and sign of the in-breaking kingdom of the Creator God as would be someone being raised from the dead.

However, rather than receiving honor and praise, Stephen would come to be accused of blasphemy, of speaking against the Temple and Moses, and was ultimately sentenced to death, experiencing the pain and shame of stoning. This was the honor that one could come to expect from being a deacon---a servant of the church’s table. This is the example that Paul, if indeed he is the author of this letter, would have in mind when writing to Timothy concerning deacons.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

So this study has gone
to Acts six, talked about widows (clarifying some unhelpful mental
misconceptions in the process), mentioned divisions, made its way to Galatians,
back to Timothy, and then on to Corinthians, all related to the mention of
“deacons.” This process has been necessary, and it has all been connected
to food, thus allowing an observer to firmly link talk of deacons in the letter
to Timothy with the church’s meal table, which also allows for the placing of
talk of “overseers” within a meal table context as well. Frankly, it is
impossible to overstate the importance of the meal for the church, as it is a
vital component of the Jesus tradition, a defining aspect of culture, and
combined with talk of food in the letters of the New Testament, a repetitive
element in the conversation related to the life of the body of Christ.

Returning then to
Acts, what is the response to the complaint about the way that food is being distributed
at the church’s gathering? “The twelve called the whole group of
disciples together and said, ‘It is not right for us to neglect the word of God
to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2). Now this could be a point of
contention. With the centrality of the meal assembly for the church, and
the value placed on service by Jesus Himself, can the disciples rightly insist
that this is the case?

Would it not be most
appropriate, in following the example of their Lord, who came not to be served
but to serve, for these disciples to do this very thing? Could having a
hand in the distribution of the food, which would mean their being the ones
that served the food to the assembled church, possibly be conceived of as
neglecting the word of the Creator God? One might very well lament this
response of the twelve, as its enshrinement in Scripture handily created what
very well may have been a dichotomy between preaching and service that Jesus
never intended, thus furthering the construction of hierarchies within the
church.

Luke opens his
account in Acts by stating that “I wrote the former account,” referring to the
Gospel of Luke, “Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).
Here, Jesus’ own disciples have opened up a disconnect between doing and
teaching. That divide becomes evident in what has become the standard,
contemporary reading of the letter to Timothy. It is not evident because
overseers and deacons, and the qualifications for such are discussed.
Rather, it is evident because one reads “overseer” and think of an authority
figure, doing the same with “deacon,” though obviously to a lesser
extent. Regardless, it is obvious that, owing to the proclamation and
example of the disciples of Jesus, that the church quickly fell into these
practical and hierarchical divisions, and these divisions immediately began to
have honor assigned to them. This is more than comprehensible, as
humanity is certainly prone to such things.

Since, unfortunately,
they were not going to be waiting on tables, as they would later make clear
that their plan was to “devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the
word” (6:4), the disciples went on to say “But carefully select from among you,
brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,
whom we may put in charge of this necessary task” (6:3). One could say
that here things went from bad to worse, as the disciples, prone to affectation
by a culture that was almost completely dismissive of women (even though women
had been charged with the initial proclamations concerning the Resurrection of
Jesus), limited that which would become a hierarchical position in the church
to men only.

One could say that,
or one could look at it another way, realizing that they were not intent upon
creating a spiritual hierarchy, but that this was an unintended by-product
brought about by a lack of faithfulness to the mission and vision of Jesus, and
chose men specifically to serve at the church’s tables, giving them the
responsibility of being sure that all shared equally in the food and drink on
offer because this is a job that would normally have fallen to women and to
slaves. Perhaps this is the genius of the disciples, but with so many set
at such a distance from the culture of the day, it is quite easy to miss what
is going on here.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Now, when one considers
a daily distribution of food to widows, there is probably an idea of people
going house to house, delivering meals to those that are shut-in and who are
too old and frail to serve themselves. Though this may have been part of
what was occurring, it is best to keep oneself culturally and historically
grounded, while also keeping the regular assembly around the meal table front
and center.

One must also bear in
mind that, due to much shorter life expectancies, these widows could have been
relatively young. Though this study will later be dealing with this in
greater detail, it is possible to get a glimpse of the treatment of widows in
the letter to Timothy (thus causing the reference to widows in Acts to have an
even greater bearing on a study of Timothy), when Timothy is instructed that
“no widow is to be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1
Timothy 5:9a).

As it relates to the
physical capabilities of widows and to being sure that they are being viewed
through an appropriate lens, Paul writes that there is a bit of a problem in
widows “going around from house to house” (5:13a). In response then,
Paul’s directive is “I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage
a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us”
(5:14). More on this anon, but in that statement, widows are the “young
women” and therefore the subject.

So again, one must
put the idea of the frail, sickly, shut-in widow, who can barely lift her head
or feed herself (though there were certainly some of these attached to the
church), out of mind and see these widows referenced here and in Acts as
capable and perhaps vibrant members of the community, who are able to
participate in the regular table gatherings of the church.

That said, it is
probable that it was at the coming together of the church around a common meal
that these widows were being neglected in the distribution of food. If
so, this sounds terribly like the situation that Paul addresses in Corinth,
where he writes “when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions
among you, and in part I believe it… Now when you come together at the
same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. For when it is
time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and
another becomes drunk. Do you not have houses so that you can eat and
drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming
those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:18,20-22a)

It becomes clear that
the honor-based arrangements around the meal tables to which Jesus was
regularly invited, and which He regularly criticized, were alive and well and
being used at the meal tables of the church in Jerusalem. Widows, as
would have been quite common owing to a lack of a living husband and therefore
a lack of honor or even the ability to accrue honor (a wife’s honor was
dependent on that of her husband), were being neglected---relegated to the
positions in which they were served last.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Observers can be
assured that hierarchical structures, which, in that day, were thoroughly
wrapped up in the very competition for honor that is rejected by the church of
the crucified Messiah, is nowhere in sight in this treatment of the
qualifications for those that aspire to the position of overseer.

Lest it be presumed
that an unwarranted step is being here taken by linking “overseer” with the
meal assembly that was the regular setting of the gathering of the church in
its earliest days, and lest it be deemed that too much weight is being put on
actions centered upon the meal as an effective counter-cultural witness, it is
possible to bolster this position by acknowledging the letter’s movement
directly from “overseer” to “deacon.”

In verse eight of the
third chapter Paul writes “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced,
not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain” (1 Timothy 3:8).
This allusion to drinking cannot be looked upon as a general principle, plucked
out of mid-air as an ideal. Rather, it must be understood to be
concretely connected to the eating and drinking of the church at its meal
table. That meal table, to be sure, in its arrangement and in the way it
was conducted, as it was rooted in the meal culture that was foundational for
society in general, and as it held to the witness of the meal tables of Jesus
and the way in which He conducted Himself and spoke at those tables, was a
powerful image of the kingdom that the Christians proclaimed, and of the God
that was being honored and worshiped at the gatherings of their association.

Along with this, it
is incumbent to add to an investigation of the letter a perusal of the
introduction of the “deacon” to the church. To do so it is necessary to
look to the book of Acts. Now, it is highly unlikely that Timothy had
access to the book of Acts as the church has it today, but it is certainly
plausible that Timothy would have been familiar with the story that described
the advent of the position. Since deacons are referenced, it is a given
that the recipient of the letter did not need to have the position explained to
him, being well aware of the “how” and the “why” of their function within the
church.

So what was that
function? Why was the position in existence? In the sixth chapter
of Acts Luke writes that “in those days,” which were some of the very earliest
days of the church, “when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint
arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews”
(6:1a). Here, one encounters the all-too-familiar divide between Jew and
Gentile within the church, though it is somewhat masked by the fact that both
sides of this divide were said to be Jews.

What was the source
of this particular division? Division between the Gentiles that were Jews
by conversion and those that were ethnic and national Jews came about “because
their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1b).
This food-related divide is probably best illustrated by the experience that
Paul recounts from his time in Antioch. This record is found in
Galatians, where Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his
face, because he has clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from
James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he
stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who
were pro-circumcision” (Galatians 2:11-12). What Paul describes in
Antioch, which is from a time period after the events recorded here in chapter
six of Acts, first played itself out within the church at an intra-Jew level
before playing itself out at an intra-church (between Jew and Gentile, and between
Gentile and Gentile) level.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Paul writes that “The
overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate,
self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent,
but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. He must manage
his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his
dignity” (1 Timothy 3:2-4). Putting flesh and blood on these words and remembering
that this is a letter to a real person in a real church full of real people in
a real community that would have functioned according to the ideals of honor
and shame, then this list of “requirements” appear to be a way to screen out
those that would, according to accepted customs and practices of the wider
community, normally be expected to preside over the meal assemblies of the
church.

Indeed, Paul may very
well have specific people in mind that are subtly addressed and ruled out as
overseers by what is here insisted upon. One may think this harsh, but
the primary concern is the strengthening of the church body, and those who are
possessive of honor and standing outside the church are those that most need to
understand the humility and the embracing of shame demanded by the way of the
cross and the kingdom of the Creator God. One way for such people to
experience shame is for their honor to mean nothing inside the assembled church.

Conversely, it might
very well be the case that Paul is less concerned with making sure that the
most holy or least sinful person (by the popular and not overly helpful way of
thinking) is overseeing the church’s gathering (again, this is not about an
overseer in the way so many are programmed to think), and more concerned that
those that would normally be considered less honorable are the ones that take
up this function, thus making the point that those that society considers to be
more honorable are to be subject, at least inside the assembly that is supposed
to represent the kingdom of Israel’s God to those that are considered less
honorable by that same society. This subjection is not one of a heavy
hand, but it is a subjection rooted in the counter-cultural egalitarianism of
the church. It is by these instructions that the culture is countered,
and through which Timothy and the church are forced to broaden their scope and
manner of thinking.

The directive is
expounded upon, and one can be further convinced that there are, in fact,
specific individuals in mind when going on to read “But if someone does not
know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of
God? He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall
into the punishment that the devil will exact. And he must be well
thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace
and be caught by the devil’s trap” (3:5-7).

It is helpful to look
at these as being person-specific---directed towards an individuals or small
group of individuals, rather than as ideals left up to subjective
analysis. Since it has been established that Paul is not writing about
pastors or church leaders in the traditional sense of the term or of those that
meet specific qualifications as determined by a council of elders, but rather,
those that are overseeing the meal-based gathering of the church in the home of
one of the believers, functioning as the host of the meal (with this rotating
regularly so that one person does not accrue undue honor or prestige), it is
possible to glean the principle and make the application that is so very
prevalent in the Pauline corpus, which is that of equality amongst believers
and the need for the church to be strengthened, with self-sacrificial love and
the preferring of one another (eschewing honor and embracing shame, as demanded
by the cross) the transcendent ideal to be embodied in the assembly.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

To this way of
thinking, Paul insists that “there is one God and one intermediary between God
and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave Himself as a ransom for
all, revealing God’s purpose at His appointed time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).
Therefore, it is faith in Jesus (fides/pistis/loyalty) that makes He and He
alone the intermediary between the Creator God and man, rather than the works
of the law (those previously mentioned covenant markers that then served to set
God’s covenant people apart from all other peoples).

Just in case there
may be a thought that this ongoing disputation between Jew and Gentile is a
component of Paul’s address here when he makes mention of “all people,” one can
look to what follows the sixth verse, which is “For this I was appointed a
preacher and apostle---I am telling the truth; I am not lying---and a teacher
of the Gentiles in faith and truth. So I want the men to pray in every
place, lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute” (2:7-8).

Chapter three opens
with “This saying is trustworthy: ‘If someone aspires to the office of
overseer, he desires a good work.’” (3:1) What is this “office of
overseer”? The Greek word that is translated as “overseer” is
“episcopes,” which is transliterated into “episcopate” and therefore
“Episcopal,” which is likely to cause a reader to consider the hierarchical
church structures and the hierarchically structured church with which we are
all quite familiar in our own day.

Though many that are reading
this study may not be a part of a traditional, denominational church, it must
be said that even non-traditional and non-denominational churches have
authoritarian structures, whether implicit or explicit. Thus one must be
careful to avoid the importation of anachronistic thinking, in which the
position of “overseer” in question here in the letter to Timothy becomes
equated with the person that oversees a church in the modern sense, whether
that be a pastor, a bishop, an area supervisor, or any such similar idea.
This type of relatively rigid church structuring would not be a settled feature
or widespread component of the first century church that gathered in private
homes as a meal association that saw themselves as the ambassadors and
harbingers of the kingdom of the covenant God, and as a renewed humanity
defined by their hope of resurrection, with worship of Jesus as the embodiment
of the Creator God as the focus of their meal-based assembly.

A ready awareness
that the church assembled around a common meal forces one to understand that
this “overseer” was, more than likely, the person that presided over the
meal. This meal presidency, which was a familiar feature of Hellenistic
meal practices, would rotate among a number of people. Ideally, it would
rotate amongst the entirety of the assembly, with each member of the body
taking their turn to perform the role; but naturally, not everybody would feel
comfortable in such a role.

Understandably then,
those that undertook to serve in this capacity would be those that were
comfortable presiding over meals, which would generally be those of higher
social status and who would be viewed as having more honor. Understanding
this, the last thing that Paul would want is for the socially accepted systems
of honor to determine the functioning of the body of the Christ, so certain
expectations are set for those that will enter into this role.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Not only would the
Roman governors look upon Christians with suspicious eyes, it would be
difficult to doubt that Christians would happily return the favor. While there
is certainly an element of Christianity that rightly and responsibly challenges
the power of governments, calls the world’s rulers to account, challenges
arrogant actions and arrogations of power, and regularly holds up restraining
hands that tell governments that “you go here and no further,” there is, of
course, a legitimate role for governments. For balance and a response,
those same hands that are held up in attempts to restrain governments,
insisting that they not go beyond their rightful place as the church says
“we’ll take it from here,” are then to be turned outwards, with arms extended
wide to embrace and deal with the issues to which the church of Christ must
address itself.

Naturally, Paul
recognizes the potential for unhelpful and unhealthy conflict between the
members of the church and temporal powers. Concordantly, he urges that
‘requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all
people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a
peaceful and quite life in all godliness and dignity. Such prayer for all
is good and welcomed before God our Savior, since He wants all people to be
saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1a-4). Though
at one level this may appear to be an acquiescence, is it not an effective
counter-cultural witness? Christians, of course, are to be the greatest
of earthly citizens because they are also citizens of the kingdom of heaven
that looks to the renewal of the whole of creation (not an escape to heaven).

Now, it would not be
unreasonable to suggest that the Christians, who, owing to their “atheism”
(because they did not worship the Roman gods or Caesar), their “cannibalism”
(for the words that accompanied their communal meals), and their lack of
participation at the temples (which were also the markets and the center of
public activity) that was taken to portend a destruction of social
cohesiveness, experienced persecution at the hands of governing authorities,
would look upon those persecutors as their enemies. Therefore, this prayer for all people,
including kings and governing authorities, was a strict following of the
teachings of Jesus, who demanded His disciples to “love your enemy and pray for
those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven”
(Matthew 5:44-45a – realizing that Matthew was probably not in circulation and
may not yet have taken the shape in which it is now to be found at the time of
the composition of the letter, and therefore, the passing along of the words of
Jesus would have been based upon Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus
tradition).

These words reach a
second level in the face of the Jew and Gentile divisions in Ephesus (and other
cities whose churches may have been recipients of the letter now called
Ephesians), with these divisions addressed in the second chapter of
Ephesians. The insistence that the Creator God “wants all people to be
saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” speaks to the lingering
hesitation on the part of ethnic Israel to grant Gentiles status as full and
legitimate members of the covenant people of the Creator God.

So while praying for
those that may potentially be perceived or actually be enemies is
counter-cultural, so too is Paul’s insistence that Israel’s God wants all
people groups to be saved (come under the provisions of His covenant), with
this running counter to the Jewish culture that wanted to continue to reserve
their God’s blessings to Israel alone, and who attempted to enforce this
restriction by insisting that Gentiles needed to adopt the covenant markers of
Judaism (primarily circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath-keeping) to indicate
their participation under their God’s covenant.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Condemnation, attempts at
heavy-handed transformation, or a mission-denying withdrawal and separation are
not the means by which either Paul or Jesus asked for or expected the culture
to be countered. Remember, Jesus saved his denouncements for the leaders
of the people. Rather, the culture is countered, and the
transformation into a culture that comes closer to living as the true
humanity originally intended by the Creator, through the kingdom-modeling,
sacrificial, love-motivated and service-oriented activities of the members of
the body of Christ, as they demonstrably and tangibly live out, in imitation of
Jesus their claim that Jesus is Lord, and that He is Lord even over the Caesar
that bears the title of “son of god.”

What appearance will be taken by
these activities? Naturally, one can find the answer on nearly every page
of Scripture. Believers can look to the Jesus tradition as embodied by
the Gospel accounts. They can look at Acts. When it comes to Paul,
an observer can look at the entire body of work that is attributed to him in
order to formulate an answer to this question. However, this study is
focusing in on a letter to Timothy, to whom Paul refers as his genuine child in
the faith, seeing there what can be understood to be, regardless of Timothy’s
“position” in the church, a personally directed letter that demands a personal
response of a single member of the body of Christ, who is presumably attempting
to live and to serve as part of a community that is yet one small component of
a global kingdom. Thus, realizing that there is a helpful
counter-cultural message in the text of the letter may show the letter to be
even more useful than some have previously imagined.

When one thinks about countering
the culture, it is almost inevitable that the first thoughts run to laws and to
government. In many ways and in many places, humans are brought up to
think in such ways, believing governments to be either the source of problems
or of solutions to problems, and are thereby ingrained with an almost
unshakeable desire to effect changes that they would like to see through the
coercive power of laws and regulations. Government is recognized as the
locus of power for the enforcement of laws. By extension then, a
government is an entity that has the power to regulate behavioral
changes. Such thinking was probably just as true in the days of Paul and
Timothy as it is now.

As the church presented a
counter-imperial and counter-cultural ethic, it would be quite easy for the
members of the body of Christ, who saw themselves (and should still see
themselves) as representative of a kingdom to which all other kingdoms are
subservient, to slip into a mindset that being counter-imperial or
counter-cultural also meant that they were to be anti-government, especially if
that government was actively oppressive towards Christians. It is quite
understandable why their Roman rulers were suspicious of so many Christians,
considering the fact that Christians claimed to serve a Lord that was far
superior to the emperor, while at the same time affirming their loyalty to a
kingdom that was not Rome.

It was one thing to maintain
loyalty to tribal deities and to long-standing territorial power structures
that could be taken advantage of by Rome as a means of preserving order and
extending its reach, and which could stand side-by-side with Roman imperial
ideology and worship, but it was quite another to take a position that ran
contrary to that ideology that also served to discount the worship of Caesar,
and even going so far as to place a criminal that was executed by Rome at the
center of its worship and allegiance. This was a direct affront to the
power of Rome and to all community and civic sensibilities.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

These heralding words
from the letter to the Ephesians, and more importantly for purposes of this
study, the heralding words that are employed in the first letter to Timothy,
are so much more than words that a client would use in honor of his
patron. They are words, as already indicated, that would be reserved for
the honoring of the world’s patron (the patron of patrons), who was
Caesar. It serves as yet another indication to an alert listener or
reader, that Paul, and those communities being formed around the claims of the
Gospel (Jesus is Lord), stand in opposition to much of the prevailing culture
of the day and are intended to be a transformative element within that culture.

This transformation
will not occur through denouncing the surrounding culture as hell-bound,
perverse, or any number of adjectives that do much to polarize and little to
effect change. While there is certainly a mystical power in the
pronouncement that Jesus is Lord, one can certainly agree that the power is
magnified if the life of the speaker accords with the claim. This goes
well beyond the avoidance of things that are determined to be “sins” or that
which is to be avoided by Christians, having much more to do with an active
engagement with the culture that demonstrates the Lordship of Jesus over every
area of life.

The pronouncement of
condemnation on anything and everything that does not align with one’s personal
viewpoint is hardly effective, and the condoning of such activities would have
to be read into the Scriptures in a way that lacks context or coherence.
This approach would probably fail to take into account the historical movement
of Scripture, the over-arching meta-narrative of exile and exodus by which the
Scriptures ask to be read, and the covenant and covenant-people framework on
offer throughout the whole of the Bible that defines the people of the Creator God
and that God’s mission in and for His world.

Attempts to use
Jesus’ harsh words against the leaders of the people, His actions in the
Temple, or the sharp words of the prophets and the apostles as justification
for harshness or ugliness that is merely cloaked in the veil of a pseudo-love,
would be to abuse and misuse those words and actions, especially considering
the fact that the harshness is so often directed to the covenant God’s covenant
people. Though one can look through the prophets and certainly find words
of the Creator God’s condemnation directed towards the nations that surrounded
and often mistreated Israel, not only is there a need to remember that such
words were subsequent to the Creator God’s judgment of His people, but also to
remember that this God’s taking up of human flesh and going to a cross in order
to die for His enemies (after telling His people to pray for and love their
enemies) pretty much changes everything.

Distance from the
text, both historically and culturally, especially for those in the western
world, should lead away from dogmatism in engagement with respective cultures,
and towards a compassionate, inquisitive, and mercy-tinged engagement that
recognizes shortcomings and a lack of complete knowledge. When one looks
at the New Testament, what must be seen behind the text are communities that
are struggling to come to terms with what is implied by the life of Jesus and
the kingdom of the Creator God that has been inaugurated by His Resurrection,
especially considering that said kingdom has been inaugurated in a way that was
completely unexpected.

This struggle, which
can be seen in the New Testament and in the records and writings of the early
church, encouragingly informs those that care to see that there has never been
a monolithic “orthodoxy” at any point in time in the history of
Christianity. Therefore, any believer’s struggles, in attempting come to
terms with the message of Jesus and His kingdom so that it might be possible to
effectively, correctly, and faithfully engage the cultures in which the
believers finds himself immersed, should inspire humility and a compassion for
others, as the believers both depends upon and attempts to reflect the
compassion of their covenant God as embodied by the Christ.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Continuing, Paul
grandly celebrates this patronage that he enjoys, writing “our Lord’s grace was
abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 1:14). Creating
something of an inscription minus the monument or the building (though it has
no real bearing on the point that is being made, one can think about Peter’s
insistence, as he operates within the same cultural milieu as Paul, that the
members of the body of Christ are “living stones… built up as a spiritual
house” on which the Gospel is inscribed in both word and deed) , he goes on to
write “This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: ‘Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners’---and I am the worst of them!”
(1:15)

Overflowing with
praises, Paul continues with “But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that
in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate His utmost patience, as an
example for those who are going to believe in Him for eternal life”
(1:16). Concluding the heralding of his patron and utilizing the words that
were reserved for the Caesar (and thus standing counter to the culture): “Now
to the eternal King, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever! Amen” (1:17).

The brief mention of
Ephesians previously, and the Jew/Gentile issues that were present in that
community, serves as a reminder that Timothy was himself in Ephesus.
Therefore, church-related issues with which Paul specifically deals in his
personal letter to Timothy are the same types of church-related issues with
which Paul will deal in the letter to the Ephesians. Strangely enough,
the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Ephesus share a stark similarity
that sets them apart from Paul’s other writings, as these two letters contain
obvious and easily recognizable odes from a client to a patron as part of their
introductions. Combined (and whether or not the two letters are Pauline,
deutero-Pauline, or pseudo-Pauline---it matters not in this case), this
certainly says something about the culture of Ephesus, and that culture (the
knowledge of which is bolstered by the record of Acts) stands as a backdrop to
the way one must hear the patron-directed praise.

Though other church
letters contain very short doxologies from Paul in their introductions,
Ephesians exceeds them all, and one can Paul’s words with everything that has
been said to this point in this study firmly in mind (with the patron-client
relationship and counter-cultural/imperial concerns serving to enlighten this reading
in a new and significant way, in the midst of heavy doctrinal,
covenant-with-Israel-dependent, and Scripturally-derived thematic elements):
“Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ. For He
chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and
unblemished in His sight in love. He did this by predestining us to
adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of His
will---to the praise of the glory of His grace that He has freely bestowed on
us in His dearly loved Son. In Him we have redemption through His blood,
the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace that He
lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. He did this when He revealed to
us the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure that He set forth in
Christ, toward the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all
things in Christ---the things in heaven and the things on earth.”

Paul continues: “In
Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were
predestined according to the one purpose of Him who accomplishes all things
according to the counsel of His will so that we, who were the first to set our
hope on Christ, would be to the praise of His glory… I pray that the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and
revelation in your growing knowledge of Him---since the eyes of your heart have
been enlightened---so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what
is the wealth of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the
incomparable greatness of His power toward us who believe, as displayed in the
exercise of His immense strength. This power He exercised in Christ when
He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly
realms far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name
that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And God
put all things under Christ’s feet and He gave Him to the church as head over
all things. Now the church is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all
in all” (1:3-12,17-23).

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

In the same letter, however, Paul can be seen engaging in
what appears to be a client-like heralding of the “churches of Macedonia” (2
Corinthians 8:1b), stressing “that during a severe ordeal of suffering, their
abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in the wealth of their
generosity” (8:2). On the surface, this appears to be Paul subordinating
himself to this particular church, speaking of them as a client would a
patron. Of significance though, is that “they gave according to their
means and beyond their means” (8:3a). So on the contrary, this is not the
act of a patron.

In that day, a patron did not diminish his own comfort and
standing to serve a client. With that world’s ultimate patron, that being
Caesar, always looming in the background as Paul continually operates in a
counter-imperial mindset (as does Jesus as well-demonstrated by the
Gospel-authors presentation of Him), a distinction between the patronage of
Caesar and Jesus is drawn, as Paul writes “For you the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that although He was rich, He became poor for your sakes, so that you
by His poverty could become rich” (8:9).
Jesus is an altogether different type of patron.

This is precisely what Paul has
described as the actions of the churches of Macedonia. Indeed, this is
the act of a community vested by the Spirit of the Creator God. Beyond
that, “They did so voluntarily, begging us with great earnestness for the
blessing and fellowship of helping the saints” (8:3b-4). Patron’s did not
act voluntarily, but rather, they acted upon request, calculating how
fulfilling the request and meeting a need would impact their honor
standing. Not only is this not what has occurred with the Macedonian
churches, but they went to the other end, to the end of shame, begging Paul to
allow them to participate. It’s almost as if there are no definitions or
culturally recognized categories for what Paul is describing.
Conceivably, this can be viewed as something entirely new in the world, and if one
takes the position that the incarnation, crucifixion, and Resurrection changed
everything, then it is difficult to disagree with that assessment.

Paul did not wish to
be viewed, on a human and cultural level, as either patron or client. On
a cosmic level things were different. He had a patron (Jesus) and he was
most certainly a client, and this impacted every area of life, while also going
against the cultural grain of the Greco-Roman world. This even went
against the grain of his own culture, as the popular (generalized) opinion within
the world of Israel was that when their God took it upon Himself to act as
Messiah, that the Gentiles would then become the clients of Jews, with the
Gentiles relying on Israel and Israel’s special relationship with the Creator
God that they might derive the obvious benefits that had been reserved to
national Israel. Something like this attitude is on display when Paul is
dealing with Jew/Gentile issues in the churches (Ephesians, Galatians and
Romans particularly, and also in the record of the book of Acts).

Paul was perfectly
content with divesting all presumed honor so that he might be looked upon as a
client to the cosmic King and the Creator God. This becomes obvious as
one moves forward in the first chapter of the letter to Timothy. Paul
speaks in the voice of a client, heralding his supreme patron, and can be heard
to say “I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our
Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, even
though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man.
But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief”
(1:12-13). Here, it is good to be aware that the celebration of the
compassion and mercy (along with the loyalty, patience, and humility) of one’s
patron was a standard feature of clientele praise.

Monday, October 20, 2014

So what does all of this
patron-client talk have to do with Paul’s first letter to Timothy? What’s
the point of the examples of clients honoring their patrons, be it by
heralding, inscriptions, or some other manner? Is Paul to be viewed as
Timothy’s patron? Is one to somehow perceive Timothy as being Paul’s
client? Though something like that could certainly be gleaned from the
introduction to the letter, when Paul writes “to Timothy, my genuine child in
the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus
our Lord!” (1:2), it would be a stretch to assert this as being true to the
situation. Observers, however, could possibly infer such a relationship,
and it is possible that Paul has this potentiality in mind. With that in
mind, Timothy will be considered in short order, but another detour is most
necessary.

Paul,
much like Jesus, does not wish to be viewed as a patron. At the same
time, Paul took steps during the course of his ministry to make sure that he is
not looked upon as being a client either, as this, according to his way of
thinking, would diminish his effectiveness and run contrary to what needs to
happen in the communities envisioned by the messianic mission and the kingdom
of the covenant God. Thus there is a stark emphasis on this aversion in
what is looked to as Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth.

In the eleventh chapter Paul can
be heard asking “did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you could be
exalted, because I proclaimed the Gospel to you free of charge? I robbed
other churches by receiving support from them so that I could serve you!
When I was with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone… I kept
myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so…
And what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may eliminate any
opportunity for those who want a chance to be regarded as our equals in the
things they boast about” (2 Corinthians 11:7-9a,9c,12).

Not only is Paul expressing his
independence from this church, while also diminishing the patron-client
relationship into which others might naturally enter in their service of the
church, one must notice that Paul also debases himself by referring to himself
as a robber. Such words, along with the other rhetorically oriented words
of debasement, demonstrate that Paul is not attempting to elevate himself in
any way, but that he truly desires to serve the churches for their
edification.

In
chapter twelve, he reiterates and emphasizes his eschewing of patronage and
clientage, writing “I will not be a burden to you, because I do not want your
possessions, but you. For children should not have to save up for their
parents, but parents for their children. Now I will most gladly
spend and be spent for your lives… I have not burdened you”
(12:14b-15a,16b). If Paul’s words are heard merely as some type of
erection of spiritual laws and the relationship between children and parents,
dismissing the patron-client constructs of his world and forgetting the
significant amount of time and attention this congregation received from Paul,
a great deal of what is being communicated to the Corinthian church will be
missed. The reader do himself a tremendous service by gaining familiarity
with the cultural dynamics of Paul’s world, which, of course, were the same
cultural dynamics at work in the world of Jesus. This opens up the world
of the Gospel, making the mental application in vastly different worlds that
much easier, while at the same time making the application of the message of
the Gospel even more challenging.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

A client would also
be expected to publicly attest to the honor of their patron. If and when
possible, a client would expend the effort to make a lasting, public pronouncement
of said honor by having an inscription placed on a public monument of a public
building, that all may see and realize the honor and generosity of their
patron. On a monument in Corinth that dates from the middle of the first
century, one can read an inscription in honor of a man named Julius
Spartiaticus, who was looked upon and acknowledged as an important patron to
the tribe of Calpurnia. He too would have been a contemporary of
Paul.

The inscription,
offered by his clients, reads: “Gaius Julius, Son of Laco, Grandson of
Eurycles, [of the tribe] Fabia, Spartiaticus, Procurator of Caesar and Augusta
Agrippina, Tribume of the Soldiers, Awarded a Public Horse By the Deified
Claudius, Flamen Of the Deified Julius, Pontifex, Duovir Quinquennalis twice,
Agonthete of the Isthmian and Caesar-Augustan Games, High Priest of the House
of Augustus In Perpetuity, First of the Achaeans. Because of his Virtue
and Eager and all-encompassing munificence toward the Divine House And toward
our Colony, the tribesmen Of the Tribe Calpurnia [Dedicated this] to their
Patron.”

Apart from
inscriptions on monuments and buildings which, understandably, could be quite
expensive and therefore limited only to being provided by the wealthier clients
of even wealthier patrons (remembering that, apart from the Caesar himself,
everybody was a client of somebody at some level), the honor of a patron could
be expressed through the employment of a herald. It is possible to find
some excellent Scriptural example of somebody being heralded in the book of
Esther. There, Mordecai is heralded by Haman. “He led him about on
the horse throughout the city, calling before him, ‘So shall it be done to the
man whom the king wishes to honor!’” (6:11b) Though this is certainly not
an instance of a client heralding a patron, it is an example of somebody being
honored through the employment of a herald---albeit in this case an unwilling
herald.

The Gospel of Luke
presents a record of something that would have been understood as a clear
instance of heralding. Given the early church’s position concerning who
Jesus was and how He was worshiped in the years between His Resurrection and
the composition of Luke’s Gospel, the angel of the Lord making an appearance to
the shepherds in the field and telling them to “Listen carefully, for I
proclaim to you good news that brings great joy to all people: Today your
Savior is born in the city of David. He is Christ the Lord” (2:10b-11),
would have been perceived as an instance of a patron (the Creator God manifest)
being heralded (by one of His angels). This is not a ground-breaking
thought, especially considering the song “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.”
However, the activity being referenced by the song asks to be comprehended
according to a world defined by honor, the role of heralding, and the governing
dynamics of the patron-client relationship.

Speaking to this
activity, and doing so from the basis of a clear knowledge of and undoubted
participation in the patron-client system, along with a thoroughgoing knowledge
of the role of honor in his world, Dio Chrysostom, an orator, writer,
philosopher, and historian of the Roman Empire who was also contemporary with
the Apostle Paul, wrote: “But when we come to men, they require crowns, images,
the right of precedence, and being kept in remembrance; and many in times past
have even given up their lives just in order that they might get a statue and
have their name announced by the herald or receive some other honor and leave
to succeeding generations a fair name and remembrance of themselves.”

One could even take
these words and compose an imaginary speech by a client, in honor of a patron,
hearing something like “This man deserves crowns upon his head. He should
have images erected in his honor. He and his family should have
precedence of place at all public functions. His name should be kept in
remembrance. With complete disregard for his own safety, he risked his
life, though he expected no statues. He placed himself at the mercy of
the gods, though the idea of a herald announcing his exploits was far from his
mind. Because he had acted in complete altruism, with no regard for
honor, he should be honored, as should his progeny, for generations to
come.”

Friday, October 17, 2014

Though the patron-client system functioned at multiple
levels, in which the client of one patron could also have clients of his own, it
would be obvious that the most noble of families could have large numbers of
clients supporting them in their endeavors. Along the same lines, entire
kingdoms or nations, once conquered and made subservient, could become clients
to the Roman commander that had conquered them. Such was the way of the
world.

Of course, if clients had clients, and if this reached all
the way down to the basest level of society, it would also hold true for the
other side of the ladder. Even a noble family would be the clients of a
more honorable family, with this being the case all the way up to, in the days
of Jesus and subsequently of the Apostle Paul, the Caesar himself.
Ultimately, all were looked upon as clients of Caesar, who was faithful and
loyal to his subjects. Those subjects, in turn, were to be faithful and
loyal to Caesar. This ideal was embodied in the common phrase “ek pistis
eis pistin,” which is often translated as “from faith to faith”. The Apostle Paul borrowed this common and
well-known phraseology and subversively put it to use in his letter to the
Romans (1:17).

It is this system of patronage
that truly formed the foundation of the Roman state. Not only did it
serve to create stability, but the unwavering loyalty of clients could aid
certain families in retaining power for extended periods of time. At the same
time, it created something of a welfare network, which was especially useful
within an empire that lacked the means (or, at least, did not direct those
means) to support those most in need and incapable of providing for
themselves.

The client system that surrounded a patron would look out
for its members, ensuring that no harm would come to its own. If one
member of the client group would be struck down by poverty, the other clients,
and most likely the patron as well, would see to it that the one in need could
get a loan. In the worst case, they would see to it that their fellow
client would receive a decent funeral. If the patron was unable to
provide assistance personally, he would orchestrate the assistance (gaining
honor), perhaps asking other clients to come to the aid of another that had
fallen on hard time.

In continuing to
explore the patron-client dynamic of Paul’s day, one can look to Seneca---a
Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and humorist that was a contemporary
of the Apostle Paul. Seneca wrote: “Let
us, therefore, show how acceptable a gift is by loudly expressing our gratitude
for it; and let us do so, not only in the hearing of the giver, but
everywhere. He who receives a benefit with gratitude, repays the first
installment of it.” This statement would reflect the general attitude of
a client towards his patron, who would be looked upon as the source of
gifts. For what it’s worth, Seneca himself was a tutor of the Emperor
Nero, later becoming an advisor. Most assuredly, he would have considered
Nero to be his patron, so though these words would be generally reflective of
the patron-client relationship, they would most likely be penned with the
Caesar in mind.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

If one does not operate from within an awareness of the
patron-client system of the ancient world, one will undoubtedly miss what would
have been obvious to the witnesses of these things and to those to whom these
stories came, whether in oral or written form. That is not to say that it
will not be possible to understand the overarching Gospel message (Jesus is
Lord), but rather, that readings and the ability to apply that which is gleaned
and learned from those readings will be richer by orders of great magnitude if one
approaches the Scriptural text within appropriate historical and contextual
boundaries.

Moving forward then, it is incumbent upon an observer to
realize that the world into which the Gospel narratives were introduced would
have been more than well-versed in the dynamics of the patron-client
relationship, as would those that came to identify themselves as
Christians. This cultural dynamic would certainly be put to good use,
especially since, in that time, it was very much the case that all positive
relationships with any god were rooted in the perception of the patron-client
relationship.

So, even though it may seem
quite extraneous to a perusal of a letter of Paul, it is quite important to
have a strong grasp of this underlying cultural principle of the patron-client
system so that it is possible to correctly hear what Paul is communicating to
Timothy. As indicated by the title of this study, there is a strong
counter-cultural bent in the first letter to Timothy, as is largely the case
for Paul; and the patron-client system seems to be a useful jumping off
point. To that end, said system will continue to be explored, with that
exploration providing a few more details that can serve as cultural keys in an
exegesis of the letter.

A client was a loyal supporter
to a high standing Roman family, and it is the head of that higher-standing
family that would ultimately be known as “patronus,” or “patron.” The
clients of the patron functioned as an extended family to the patron---something
like a clan. They would be expected to loyally support him (offer fides
or pistis) in any venture upon which he chose to embark, be that military,
political, or commercial. Meanwhile, the patron would aid his clients
through representing their political interests through the office that he held,
or by defending them in the courts as their advocate if such became
necessary.

This bond between patron and client was one of the bedrock
foundations of Roman society. This reciprocal loyalty (again, fides or
pistis) was a highly prized virtue, and it served to hold together families
while serving as the unifying nexus of the social order. The loyalty of
the client would be expected to extend beyond the patron and to the patron’s
family as well. If a patron were to die, a client would be expected to
offer the patron’s heir the same loyalty as had been offered to the original
patron. Likewise for the client. Should the client die, his heir
would be expected to stand in for the head of that family, continuing the clientele
loyalty to their benefactor.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

In the fifth chapter of Mark, Jesus heals a demoniac by
casting a “Legion” of demons out of him and into a herd of pigs. At the
conclusion of this story, it is reported that “As He was getting into the boat
the man who had been demon-possessed asked if he could go with Him. But
Jesus did not permit him to do so. Instead, He said to him, ‘Go to your
home and to your people and tell them what the Lord has done for you, that He
had mercy on you.’” (Mark 5:18-19)

At first glance, it appears that Jesus is in fact telling
this man to engage in activity that would be standard for a client, that of
telling others about the benefaction of a patron. However, on second
glance, Jesus, as was customary, is pointing away from Himself and to the
Creator God of Israel as the source of healing. At the same time, the
Gospel author wants the reader to see the way in which Jesus act of mercy is
received against the known background of the patron-client dynamic, as he goes
on to write “So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus
had done for him, and all were amazed” (5:20). This would have been
standard practice for a client. Though it has not been requested nor
demanded of him, he has made Jesus his patron. Though the earthly Jesus
clearly did not desire this, especially when considering His constant
insistence on keeping His activities or identity secret, in a cosmic sense this
is entirely appropriate.

The story of “Blind Bartimaeus,” as recorded in the tenth
chapter of Mark, also fits well into the patron-client dynamic.
Commencing with verse forty-six: “They came to Jericho. As Jesus and His
disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of
Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road. When he heard that it
was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to shout, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on
me!’” (10:46-47) By this, Bartimaeus is attempting to gain Jesus’
attention and ultimately His patronage, offering Jesus praise, requesting
mercy, and so attempting to take the position of client.

Reading further then, it is said that “Many scolded him to
get him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on
me!’ Jesus stopped and said, ‘Call him.’ So they called the blind
man and said to him, ‘Have courage! Get up! He is calling
you.’ He threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus. Then
Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ The blind man
replied, “Rabbi, let me see again.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go, your faith
has healed you.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on
the road” (10:48-52).

In this story, Bartimaeus is undeterred by the scolding.
He desires Jesus’ patronage. He is willing to become Jesus’ client.
He throws off his cloak (likely his only cloak), thus signifying a complete
reliance on this patron (further debasing himself as a nod to the honor of the
potential patron). He also uses the honorific title of “Rabbi.”
Jesus’ response is not what one would expect from a patron, in that He does not
take credit for the healing, but rather, Jesus tells the man that he has been
healed by his own faith (fides, pistis - loyalty). The now healed man,
desirous of showing forth his loyalty and of having a role in increasing Jesus’
public honor, takes up the position of a client, by following Jesus on the
road.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Now to the eternal king, immortal,
invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen. – 1
Timothy 1:17 (NET)

Before
one can commence with an exegesis of the text of Paul’s first letter to Timothy
(this study will take the position that the letter comes from the mind and hand
of the Apostle Paul, though for the purposes of this study, it really makes no
difference whether the letter is Pauline or deutero-Pauline), there is an
obligation to take steps to construct the social framework in which the letter
will be composed, in which it will be read by its recipient, and in which it
may have been shared with an assembly of Christians. Specifically, one
must be aware of the patron-client relationship of the Roman world.

The
patron-client relationship was one which tied persons of significantly
different social status together in a reciprocal exchange of goods and
services. The relationship is asymmetrical, in that the two sides are not
social equals and will never make any pretense whatsoever of equality.
The patron-client contract, especially in a world heavily divided between free
and slave or citizen and subject, as was the Roman world, provides the client
with things that would not normally be available to them, whether that be
material things or even something nebulous and subjectively defined, such as
justice. Whatever it is that is provided to the client by the patron, it
is understood that the client badly needs these things, and that the client
cannot obtain such things on his own.

In
return for the benefaction of the patron, the client gives the patron honor and
loyalty. In a world defined by the system of the limited good of honor,
the client does not confer his own honor upon the patron. Rather, the
patron is accorded greater honor in the court of public reputation by amassing
a network of clients that, ipso facto, demonstrates the largesse of the patron
and serves to signify how truly honorable and worthy of honor the patron
is.

The honor of the patron is then
noised abroad by the client (the client speaks in honorific language about his
patron), so that all may hear of the deeds of the patron on behalf of the
client, which is part and parcel of his demonstration of loyalty. In
Latin, this loyalty is known as “fides,” whereas in Greek it is known as
“pistis.” Translated to English, such is read as “faith.” The
denizens of the world into which Jesus and the announcement of His Gospel came
would have largely heard “faith” as a response of loyalty within the parameters
of the patron-client system.

Interestingly,
the existence and prevalence of the patron-client relationship seem to be
implied in many accounts within the Gospels of Jesus’ interaction with those
that came to Him seeking some good thing that they could not obtain for
themselves. Those that came to Jesus in search of the good that He could
provide would be fully aware of the patron-client relationship, and would often
expect the demand for or exhibit the desire to treat Jesus as their patron,
offering their services or their selves to Him as their client. Jesus,
however, during His earthly ministry, rejects clientage, and resists becoming a
patron in the accepted sense. To demonstrate this, a couple of brief
examples from the Gospels will suffice.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Subjection to
another, that seeking and taking out of the lowest place, which was spoken of
and modeled by Jesus, with the strengthening of the church and the emanation of
justice as the Creator God sees it (supremely concerned for orphans and widows
and lepers and children and all of those considered to be the lowest of all)
that flows from one’s spirit-led activities as the measuring stick for true
spirituality (not speaking in tongues or the exercise of other specific gifts
in isolation, as constructed by one particular church community), is a vital
and crucial element of true worship of Jesus and of the Father.

Therefore, with the
ceaseless and nearly inescapable striving for honor in mind, it is finally
possible to hear Paul say “If someone does not recognize this, he is not
recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:38). By now, it should be realized that the
language of “recognition” is the language of the court of public opinion, of
reputation, and of honor. Again, true recognition, and therefore true
honor within the body of the Christ, belongs solely to the Lord of the body. This is displayed when the one that would sit
in the place of honor in the surrounding world or in any other type of
association, actively subjects himself or herself to those that would be deemed
less honorable outside the body of Christ, serving them with the same type of
love and compassion that was displayed by the Creator God’s action of venturing
forth to join and serve His creation, and the venturing forth to the cross as
the summation and climax of that service.

“So then, brother and
sisters,” as Paul writes in the hopes that his message about this particular
issue has been properly conveyed, received, and understood, “be eager to
prophesy” (14:39a), for this, engaged in by all, will encourage, console, and
strengthen the church, while convicting and calling all, even the unbeliever
and uninformed, to account for failures to rightly bear the divine image.
“And,” furthermore, Paul tells them that even though it has been problematic
and has created a situation that has been antithetical to the true nature of
the church, now that you better understand how best to put this ancient
religious practice to proper use within the church, and now that you better
understand the way that believers are supposed to manifest the Spirit of the
covenant God and to respond to activities that manifest the Spirit of that God
among you, “do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues” (14:39b).

Effectively, having
been given their instructions by Paul, and hopefully waking away from this time
of gathering with a better grasp on the world-shaking and shaping nature of the
activities of the church of the Christ and of its effect on the way that the Creator
God intends His world to work, Paul concludes this portion of his heavily
rhetorical yet applicable dissertation with “And do everything in a decent and
orderly manner” (14:40).

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Closing out his treatment
of the religious exercise of speaking in tongues as it was being practiced by
the Corinthian church, Paul, with a strenuous focus on the need for unity,
sharing, preferring of others, and service to the body, begins his conclusion
with “If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should
acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Corinthians 14:37).
Here, based on the remote possibility that his message has not been duly
received, and with a precise placement in the stream of thought that has been
at least partially constructed by the need for mutual subjection (14:32), Paul
seems to direct his words to those that either look upon themselves or are
looked upon as spiritually superior, emphasizing their subjection to him and to
the Lord.

If the idea of
subjection to Paul is on offer, then it is incumbent upon an observer to see
how that fits within the movement of the letter, as Paul would most certainly
not go to these lengths to emphasize unity within an egalitarian assembly (no
divisions, no stratifications, no authoritarian structures based on the
prevalent honor code), and then at the last second turn the tables and attempt
to place himself in the seat of honor. An effective guide becomes what
Paul has written about himself in the fourth chapter.

Beginning in verse
nine there Paul writes: “For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of
all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world,
both to angels and to people. We are fools for Christ, but you are wise
in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished,
but we are dishonored! To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty,
poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads. We
do hard work, toiling with our own hands. When we are verbally abused, we
respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us,
we answer in a friendly manner. We are the world’s dirt and scum, even
now” (4:9-13).

With this rhetorical
deployment, Paul takes up the language of a slave---of one possessive of no
rights and no honor---applying it to himself. Indeed, in an ironic twist,
this is confirmed by what follows, which is “I am not writing these things to
shame you, but to correct you as my dear children” (4:14). Paul presents
himself as a person that sits at the “shame” end of the honor and shame spectrum.
This then, returning to the fourteenth chapter, is the one to whom those
considered by themselves to be spiritually superior (prophets or spiritual
persons) are to submit.

Naturally, Paul
points beyond himself to the presumptive Lord of this church---to the One that
experienced the ultimate shame as the One to whom subjection is owed.
Accepting these words from Paul is akin to hearing them from the crucified One,
who not only experienced the place and act of ultimate shame in that day, but
who went there willingly and purposefully, to create a people that would follow
the leading example of what they understood to be true of both His manner of
life and His manner of death (with the attendant honor and shame related
sensibilities at play throughout).

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Skipping past what
appears to be an interpolation that does not seem to fit at all with the ethos
of Paul’s letters (verses 33b-35, which is sometimes found in manuscripts at
the conclusion of verse forty, with this fluid placement indicative of its
potentially extraneous nature, not unlike the story of the woman taken in
adultery of John chapter eight, which is not found in many early manuscripts
and sometimes shows up after Luke 21:38), this study picks up with Paul asking
the question “Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?”
(1 Corinthians 14:36) This is a rather pointed question, and seems to
flow quite naturally from the statement concerning disorder and peace. It
is clear that the question is directed to the wider church, but one is forced
to wonder why.

Though dogma-level
assertions are probably not possible, considering the regular competitions for
honor that took place amidst the meal associations of the day, it is possible
that here Paul speaks to the possibility of multiple church bodies within the
same community entering into some type of similar honor competition that pitted
body against body in their attempts to honor their object of worship (namely
Jesus). As it is quite easy to see churches effectively competing against
each other for members, for recognition, and for the types of public honors
that are available in our own time, this possibility does not seem overtly
remote.

Closer to home, an
individual member of the body that was the primary recipient of this message
(leaving open the possibility that this letter was directed to multiple
assemblies of Christ-worshipers) could hear these words in a more personal
manner, as they follow hard upon Paul’s insistence that participation within
the church should be widespread, with all exercises attributed to the influence
of the Spirit accorded equal value.

This equal valuation
of the Spirit’s presence and the person through whom the Spirit is active (with
whether or not Jesus’ Lordship, which can be declared in any number of ways,
and especially in ways that are derived from the understanding of the Jesus
tradition that was then in circulation prior to the formation of the Gospels as
we have them, is affirmed as the sole determiner of the activity of the Spirit
of the Creator God), along with the insistence upon mutual subjection
(preferring one another in humility) in the exercise of the gift that Paul most
highly encouraged, provides a helpful framework in which a hearer could understand
the words of verse thirty-six, making it possible to understand it as Paul’s
continued encouragement for individuals to continually disavow the personal
accumulation of honor.

Hearing these words
in this way could lead to seeking opportunities for community affirming mutual
subjection that is based upon the desire to emulate the one to whom they look
as Lord (who consistently sought out the lowest place rather than the highest
place while instructing His disciples to do the same, who performed the role of
a slave, and who set Himself amidst those considered to be possessive of shame
or who stood completely outside the system of honor and shame, such as
children) and who is deserving of all honor.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Along with these
things, in an act of preferring one another and valuing all participation
equally, though it will be subject to evaluation by the whole of the assembly
as they mull over the words within the framework of what they have been taught
by Paul and the Jesus tradition that is to shape their modeling out of the
kingdom of their God, Paul adds “And if someone sitting down receives a
revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude” (1 Corinthians 14:30),
giving no thought to their own honor or standing.

With thoughts of
selflessness and a shame-embracing love ringing in the background, one can then
read “For you can all prophesy one after another” (14:31a), with the now
ubiquitous and completely expected directive in regards to the exercise of
spiritual gifts, “so all can learn and be encouraged” (14:31a), and presumably
strengthened.

Paul reinforces the
social leveling that he desires to see happening within the church when, after
putting brackets around the usage of ecstatic speech and again encouraging
prophecy as something that is encouraging and strengthening, by adding “Indeed,
the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (14:32a). When
encountering this, it would behoove an observer to focus less on the “spirits
of the prophets,” as this most likely is simply a reference to the Spirit being
at work within the assembly through those engaging in body-strengthening words
of prophecy, and more on the side of being “subject.” This subjection
serves as a reminder that one person is not going to vaunt themselves over or
be vaunted over the community of believers.

Any type of movement
related to the activity of prophecy being used as an elevating factor within
the body, as glossolalia was apparently being inappropriately used, wherein
those that prophesy began to be afforded certain honors or by which a certain
class of individuals within the church body began to appear, would be very much
out of order. Thus, rounding out his thought about the mutual subjection
of those that engage in prophetic activity (which Paul hopes to be as
widespread as reasonably possible in the assembly because of the purpose that
it serves --- reminder: prophesy is NOT about predicting the future), Paul
concludes with “for God is nor characterized by disorder but by peace”
(14:33a).

It cannot be repeated
enough that honor competitions had no place in the church that is to be the
visible representative of the One who eschewed being honored at every turn, and
instead embraced suffering, shame, and the lowest places (including the lowest
place ever devised, that being the cross). These honor competitions, as
can be gleaned from this letter to Corinth, were conducive of animosity and
productive of factions. This would unfortunately and decidedly militate
against the order and well-being of the body of Christ, damaging its ability to
engage in true fellowship for and among believers, while also damaging its ability
to witness to a King and a kingdom to which all are subordinate.

Indeed, if the
members of the body of Christ are pre-occupied with participating in social
systems that result in the subordinating of one believer to another, is there
going to be a focus on all being completely subordinate to their Lord that
subordinated Himself by going shamefully to a cross?

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Paul is placing what he
hopes to be effective boundaries around the particular religious exercise of
speaking in tongues, as he continues his extensive and specific dealing with
the issue. He underscores the universal recognition that ecstatic speech,
through all of the recorded history of the practice that preceded the Christian
church, demands interpretation as part of its functionality, and for both
components of the act (speaking and interpretation) to be put to good use for
the strengthening of the church (its most important role).

Without
interpretation, the act most likely serves to draw attention to oneself, rather
than to the god that is attempting to speak through the ecstatic speaker.
Plus, the interpreter allows for joint participation with another person (or
perhaps more than one person?), thus achieving the goal of strengthening and encouraging,
while not allowing for honor to accrue to just one individual through whom the
god is speaking.

Accordingly, Paul
insists that “if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the
church. Let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Corinthians 14:28).
Can one not see that this deals quite effectively with the issue of competition
and the honoring of self? To this, with the strengthening of the church,
along with its fellowship, equality of station, and universal participation in
mind (with the always ongoing competition for honor also in mind), Paul adds
“Two or three prophets should speak (prophecy calling authorities to account or
offering commentary about the actions of the covenant people, sometimes
speaking apocalyptically) and the others should evaluate what is said” (14:29).

Prophets, of course,
are those that prophesy, which Paul encourages all to do, so this is certainly
not to be hailed as a special class of people within the church. Plus, one
must catch the flow of the thought. “Two or three prophets should speak,
and the others,” presumably the rest of the assembly who also function as
prophets (as Paul encourages the entire assembly to engage in speaking forth
the words that attempt to reveal the Creator God’s character for the purpose of
shaping the response of a people, or shaping a people into a responsive
people), “should evaluate what is said.”

Again, the entire
church assembly is engaged, with speakers that come from the entire societal
range of the body, and the words of those speakers subject to the entire body
that also encompasses the entire range of society. This once again devalues
the honor system (though one must confess to the possibility that this analysis
represents an over-reaching and over-reading of the impact of the honor and
shame system and Paul’s thoughts and concerns related to that system and its
unfortunate and undesirable functionality inside the church) and disregards the
social standing that one may have outside of the Christian body as irrelevant
to one’s standing within the body of Christ.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Fifteen thousand
words of foundational material in this study allow for what comes next from
Paul to be quite readily consumed, grasped, and comprehended, with proper conclusions
readily drawn. So moving along then, Paul writes “What should you do
then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song,
has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1
Corinthians 14:26a).

Here, Paul again
deploys “brothers and sisters,” which feels like a way for him, as this is
discerned from the contextual and textual flow of the entire letter, to produce
unity of mind and of purpose within the congregation gathered at their standard
assembly to hear this letter read in its entirety and as a group. With this,
one cannot escape the fact any more than the divided and possibly stratified
Corinthian believers could escape the fact, that Paul emphasizes and expects an
equal participation by all in the events of the assembly.

One must not take it lightly
when Paul says that “each one” should have a song, a lesson, a revelation, a
tongue, or an interpretation. This does not mean that each should have
the ability to demonstrate all of these things, though this would not be
problematic and could certainly be encouraged as long as it did not result in
an unwarranted accrual of honor to anybody but the Creator God and His Christ,
but that each one is encouraged to participate at some level, doing so, at
least initially one would expect, in one of the ways that is being recognized as
being influenced and directed by the covenant God through the Holy
Spirit.

Of course, the rest
of verse twenty-six falls directly in line with all that Paul has said
concerning tongues to this point, which is “Let all these things be done for
the strengthening of the church” (14:26b). This is always the crux of the
matter for Paul in his letter to Corinth. The strengthening of the church
is the matter at hand in this letter. What they have been doing, which is
what Paul is criticizing on multiple levels, apparently exacerbated with the
elevation of the speech act of glossolalia, has led to, in his opinion, the
weakening of the church. One is then able to come to the conclusion that
Paul sees a weakened and discouraged church through his constant exhortation that
expresses the need for strengthening and encouraging.

If the church is
weakened, then by definition the kingdom of the Creator God (the bringing of
heaven to earth---causing the overlap of God’s realm of existence with man’s
realm of existence, manifested whenever selfless and sacrificial love that
reveals the character of God that is also to be the calling card of those that
are His image-bearers is being put on display) is damaged, as it is the church
that functions as the ambassadorial arm of that kingdom.

It is with such
thoughts (including in these thoughts that there were problems, including the
bestowal of honor in competition with other spiritual gifts or other factions
within the church, being created and exacerbated through the displays of
speaking in tongues) under consideration that one then goes on to hear “If
someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after
the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27).

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

The assembly in which
none go hungry and in which the needs of all are met, with a conscientious and attentive
eye cast towards the wider community for the purpose of meeting the needs of
those outside their association, and not for the purpose of gaining honor for
their assembly but because of the example of their God that went to a cross and
was said to have suffered on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom,
and as a component of their expressed desire to go to the lowest places and
people in order to share in their suffering and shame (taking it upon
themselves in a sense, as such an association would cause them to be viewed
more shamefully as well), would certainly serve to bring a level of
conviction.

Such a person,
witnessing the activity of the gathered church of the Christ, could very well
be called to account by all, especially if that calling to account is not a
condemnation of his or her sin as some tend to think of it (those things
referred to as “activities of the flesh”), but rather a calling to account that
causes that person to reflect on what it means to be truly human and one’s obvious
failures in this area.

The heretofore
uninstructed observer would be witnessing that which the Creator God has
intended for His divine image-bearers. The true working of the Spirit,
rather than being seen as something that results in a personal display of Spirit-led
activity, takes place as the covenant God’s Spirit flows through the
kingdom-modeling activities of His body and calls one more person to conviction
and account. As the Spirit works, gifting a man or woman to participate
in the kingdom of their God, re-shaping mindsets and transforming the heart so
that it stands in opposition to the values of a fallen world, while also being
ready to engage in ways to effectively impact and re-shape the values of those
that inhabit a fallen world, “The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and in
this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God,
declaring ‘God is really among you.’” (1 Corinthians 14:25)

That deep-seated
knowledge of the responsibility to bear the divine image, along with the
failure to do so, springs to life. Without doing so as a means of
proof-texting, one can borrow from the letter to the Romans in order to
buttress the statement and the ideas that stand behind verse twenty-five to
possibly understand Paul’s thinking, as there he writes “because what can be known
about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributed---His eternal power
and divine nature---have been clearly seen, because they are understood through
what has been made. So people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).
The Creator God is put on (puts Himself on?) display through His kingdom
community.

As part of this same
process of understanding this portion of Paul’s communication, it is possible
to look to one of his speeches recorded in Acts, as he speaks about the “Unknown
God” of Athens, and about His power, His presence, and His purpose of revealing
Himself in the manner in which He has revealed Himself (His Christ and His
church), “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for Him
and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
Through the gift of His Spirit, which is meant to shape an ever-increasing
portion of humanity into conformity to His own image, with this occurring by
certain but not limited manifestations of that Spirit that can be referred to
as individual gifts, conviction is brought about, and the Creator God receives
the glory that is due to Him. Bringing this about has always been part of
the required role of His people.

Bearing in mind the
way that an assembly-wide engagement in ecstatic speech would be viewed by the outsider,
along with the importance attached to public speech acts (as those deemed to be
most honorable are those that would be permitted to speak in the assembly of an
association), and building on his statement that “Prophecy… is not for
unbelievers, but for believers” (1 Corinthians 14:22b), Paul goes on to write
“But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or uninformed person enters, he will be
convicted by all, he will be called to account by all” (14:24a).

Does this mean that
those prophesying are convicting the unbelieving or uninformed visitor to the
association of their sins, of their immoral lifestyle, or of their need to “get
saved”? Perhaps, but these would most likely be secondary convictions,
discussed as fellowship and relationship is established.

As the Christian
assembly is to be a lived-out model of the kingdom of the Creator God in the
world (a free association of equality as a mutually beneficial fellowship of
Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, and free that actively disavows honor and
the pursuit of the world’s ideal of honor, with the only “competition” geared
to taking the lowest place as others are preferred above oneself), the
unbeliever or uninformed will enter upon the Christian assembly and see
something with which they are entirely unfamiliar.

They would experience
that which they could experience in no other place and in no other setting
(apart from other Christian assemblies), for the Christians there gathered were
worshiping a Lord like no other. This worship extended beyond the pouring
out of a drink offering to their god, and beyond a performance (or multiple
performances) of ecstatic speech with interpretation, but extended to the point
that those that are serving and those that are sitting at the lowest places are
those that the unbeliever or uninformed person would, based upon knowledge of
the position of certain individuals within their community, expect to see
seated at the places of honor, receiving the best food and drink, presiding
over the assembly, being listened to attentively as purveyors of wisdom and
knowledge through eloquent speech, speaking in tongues, and interpreting
tongues. This, however, most assuredly to their surprised eyes, would not
be the case.

The church would
provide a living, breathing, counter-cultural witness to the claims that those
same Christians would be making outside of their assemblies and in interaction
with the members of their community. The church body, in which all
prophesy regardless of their social standing (without even getting in to what
exactly constitutes prophecy), engaging in what would generally be considered
to be an honor-based or honor-gathering public speech act, without distinction
or division, from what would be perceived to be the lowest place to the highest
place, with all given equal standing and equal attention within the community,
would certainly bring conviction. In
addition, the assembly in which all share equally in food and drink, which
would be the most common indicator, apart from seating position, of social
status, would certainly convict an untrained onlooker.